Freedom of expression is not the only norm of the Internet.
New media is defined as one of the core liberty rights of a free press. A free press and autonomous media are considered to be the cornerstone of any democratic society(Benedek & Kettemann, 2013). There are many who argue that the Internet itself is characterized by providing freedom and openness to its users, so the right to access the Internet is itself an emerging human right(Benedek & Kettemann, 2013), as it is ensuring the right to freedom of expression, and the public’s right to freedom of access to information. Yet the rapid growth of the Internet has also created problems that cannot be ignored, as bullying, harassment, violent content, hatred, pornography and other problematic content are spread unchecked on digital platforms due to the absence of legal restrictions in the online world. Because of this, the contemporary democratic social environment faces a great challenge in balancing freedom of expression in the new media environment with the need for platform regulation. While regulation of the Internet environment can allow for challenges to the right to freedom of expression online, such protections are central to freedom of expression online and must be enforced (Susi et al., 2018). As social relations on the Internet become more complex, the state is obliged to exercise its sovereignty over Internet-related situations that arise within its jurisdiction, and it is necessary to clean up the online environment and regulate and standardize Internet platforms, even if it compromises some of the freedom of expression.
The consequences of cyberbullying are severe.
Due to the unique characteristics of the Internet, the online environment may be perceived as a very free platform for users to express themselves (Erdur-Baker, 2010). However, the anonymity of the Internet drives users to be more likely to make offensive statements online as opposed to in real life. This is because, on the Internet, the identity of the cyberbully is often unknown (Greene, 2006), so people often choose not to suppress their negative emotions such as aggression, bigotry, hatred, and anger. Specifically, anonymity can provide bullies with a sense of security by hiding behind a screen and hurting others indiscriminately over the Internet without fear of being caught or receiving appropriate punishment.
“Cyberbullying” by Richard Patterson is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Teens usually are victims of cyberbullying
Cyberbullying is hurtful and deliberate communicative activity, and some objectively vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and women are more likely to receive threats in cyberspace. data from Patchin and Hinduja’s survey showed that of 384 respondents under the age of 18, about 11% described themselves as cyberbullies and 29% as cyber victims. Considering the sensitive and vulnerable psychological nature of adolescents, the consequences of cyberbullying can be terrifying. In 2018, a 14-year-old girl, Amy ‘Dolly’ Everett, who was the face of the iconic Australian outback hat company Akubra, ended her life as a result of cyberbullying. Such tragic cases are not an exception, as one researcher found that nearly 8% of children and teens who claim to be victims of cyberbullying have also developed suicidal thoughts as a result, and 69% of teens who admit to chronic cyberbullying are also victims, with suicide rates among the highest in this group(Arnon et al., 2022).
“Little Girl Feet ” by Robynlou Kavanagh is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Dangerous use of the Internet has serious consequences
Moreover, in the dangerous world of the Internet, everyone can purposefully create a false online identity and illegally obtain the victim’s personal information by cajoling or enticing them to spread it on the Internet for profit. Such a phenomenon is so prevalent that an online survey conducted by Berson concluded that a significant proportion of the 10,800 teenage girls aged 12-18 were engaging in dangerous activities such as revealing personal information(Berson et al., 2002), sending photos to people they met online, or agreeing to meet people they met online. The ninth annual American Singles Survey found that 38% of young singles ages 18-22 sent X-rated photos of themselves, the highest of any age group. Intimate photos in a relationship should not have been discussed originally, but due to the peculiarities of the Internet environment, many relationships are unhealthy and impure, and there is a definite link between dangerous Internet use (spreading personal information, intimacy with strangers) and online harassment as well as unhealthy sexual solicitation(Ybarra et al., 2007), so it is very dangerous to disclose privacy on the Internet. For example, the sending of nude photos is likely to be accompanied by endless harassment, intimidation, and blackmail, leaving the victim with prolonged mental anguish, psychological trauma, and perhaps even the option to end her own life. Like Shylynn Dixon, who shared nude photos online with a person who then threatened to blackmail her by posting them on social media sites, the 18-year-old eventually chose to end her life to escape the harassment.
“Nude...”by Anusca76 is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Who should be responsible for stoping the spread of unhealthy content？
The current online world is a world without laws, where governments have no authority over online activities and no effective means of enforcement(Benedek & Kettemann, 2013). As social relationships on the Internet become increasingly complex, the long-proposed idea of the ultimate free virtual space free from any regulation is now as well as being abandoned(Cucereanu, 2008). Regulation of the Internet is necessary to prevent the Internet from becoming a place for criminal revelry. The Internet should not be a place outside the law, and it is wrong to think that the Internet is inherently ungovernable(Flew et al., 2019).
First, the role of states and governments in the online environment is growing. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, states have an obligation to ensure that the human rights of those within their jurisdiction are protected, and they should, and indeed must, exercise sovereignty over Internet-related situations that arise within their jurisdiction(Benedek & Kettemann, 2013).
Secondly, social media platforms and websites should also be involved in taking on the job of managing content and regulating user activity. Not just to meet legal requirements or avoid imposing additional policies, but also to avoid losing users who offend or harass, appease advertisers eager to associate their brands with healthy online communities, protect their corporate image, and respect their own personal and institutional ethics(Flew et al., 2019).
Last but not least, although the government and the media have more authoritative regulatory powers, it is difficult for them to penetrate the market to carry out detailed and comprehensive regulatory work, and user groups are needed to improve the regulatory system. Since the Internet is an open platform, everyone can easily browse the content on the Internet. If users can have the right to regulate while browsing and watching, or if they can complain in time when they are bullied by the Internet, they can easily catch the illegal content circulating on the Internet and stop the spread of unhealthy information on the Internet in time.
How to regulate the Internet?
For the state and government, Internet laws should be developed and enacted to regulate and restrict the behaviour of Internet users, corresponding problematic behaviours such as cyberbullying and harassment to real-life crimes. To dispel the idea that cyberbullies think their behaviour on the Internet is not subject to the law, they dare not do whatever they want online.
At the social media platform level, a dedicated department should be set up to screen and review information, and screen, evaluate, categorize, approve, or remove/hide online content according to relevant dissemination and posting policies(Flew et al., 2019); to ensure that the content posted on one’s platform is harmless.
However, given that overly strict and aggressive vetting standards may cause users to feel that their free speech rights are being denied, vetting standards should seek to support and enforce positive online communication behaviours and minimize offensive and anti-social behaviour. And, based on reasonable vetting rules, a complaint reporting function should be established. Allow users to submit banning requests if the content makes viewers feel offended or uncomfortable.
In addition, content publishers should be informed of the possibility of complaints from viewers to ensure the publisher’s right to know, and also to enhance the user’s thinking before posting their work.
“Internet Law” by Blogtrepreneur is licensed under CC BY 2.0
The purpose of Internet regulation
However, what needs to be made clear is that the starting point for any form of regulation should be the users themselves. States must keep in mind that they should always choose the least intrusive approach – one that is consistent with international human rights law and its principles of necessity and proportionality(Benedek & Kettemann, 2013). Platform moderation aims to protect individuals, especially vulnerable audiences such as youth, from inappropriate, illegal, obscene or potentially harmful content(Flew et al., 2019).
Reference List
Arnon, S., Brunstein Klomek, A., Visoki, E., Moore, T. M., Argabright, S. T., DiDomenico, G. E., Benton, T. D., & Barzilay, R. (2022). Association of Cyberbullying Experiences and Perpetration With Suicidality in Early Adolescence. JAMA Network Open, 5(6), e2218746. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.18746
Benedek, W., & Kettemann, M. C. (2013). Freedom Of Expression And The Internet (2014). Council of Europe. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/usyd/detail.action?docID=3138760
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging Risks of Violence in the Digital Age. Journal of School Violence, 1(2), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v01n02_04
Cucereanu, D. (2008). Aspects of Regulating Freedom of Expression on the Internet.
Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341260
Flew, T., Martin, F., & Suzor, N. (2019). Internet regulation as media policy: Rethinking the question of digital communication platform governance. Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp.10.1.33_1
Greene, M. B. (2006). Bullying in Schools: A Plea for Measure of Human Rights. Journal of Social Issues, 62(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00439.x
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization. Deviant Behavior – DEVIANT BEHAV, 29, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816
Susi, M., Viljanen, J., Jónsson, E., & Kučs, A. (Eds.). (2018). Human Rights Law and Regulating Freedom of Expression in New Media: Lessons from Nordic Approaches. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017596
Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2007). Internet prevention messages: Targeting the right online behaviors. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(2), 138–145.